@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Arali Nagaraj, J.@mdashRespondent-accused in P.C. No. 115/2008 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Bellary, (hereinafter referred to as "Magistrate" for short), has sought for quashing of the said complaint which is filed by Respondent No. 2 herein. The 1st Respondent in this petition is the State of Karnataka.
2. Stated in brief, the facts leading to the present petition are as under:
(a) On 02.07.2007, the 2nd Respondent herein filed his complaint u/s 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the present Petitioner-accused for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471, 506, 420, 511 and 191 of IPC before the learned Magistrate. It came to be registered as P.C. No. 102/2007. On the same day, i.e., on 02.07.2007 the learned Magistrate, by his order passed u/s 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure referred the said complaint to the police for investigation.
(b) On 28.08.2007, the police of Gandhi Nagar P.S., to whom the said complaint was referred, submitted ''B'' Summary Report in the said P.C. No. 102/2007. Thereafter, the said case came to be adjourned from time to time till 30.06.2008 for filing objections to the ''B'' Report by the complainant therein (2nd Respondent herein). Despite availing sufficient opportunity, right from 30.08.2007 till 30.06.2008, the complainant did not choose to file his objections to the said ''B'' Report. Therefore, the learned Magistrate, by his order dated 30.06.2008, dismissed the said complaint for non-prosecution.
(c) Thereafter, the complainant filed his 2st complaint against this very Petitioner-accused for the very same offences on the same set of facts, in respect whereof the earlier complaint in P.C. No. 102/2007 was filed by him. This 2nd complaint came to be registered as P.C. No. 115/2008.
(d) The learned Magistrate, by his order dated 15.09.2008 passed u/s 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure referred the 2nd complaint also to the same police, namely the PSI of Gandhi Nagar P.S. for investigation. The said PSI registered a case in Crime No. 98/2008 of his P.S. for the very same offences against the present Petitioner-accused and issued FIR accordingly. At that stage, the Petitioner-accused has approached this Court by filing the present petition u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the said complaint and consequent investigation in the said crime.
3. Heard the arguments of both the sides. Perused the order-sheets in P.C. Nos. 102/2007 and 115/2008.
4. Shri. Shantha Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner-accused strongly contends that the 2nd Respondent-complainant, instead of challenging the order dated 30.06.2008 passed in P.C. No. 102/2007 dismissing his earlier complaint for non-prosecution and thereby getting the same restored to its original file and to contest the ''B'' Summary Report that was filed in the said case, filed his present 2nd complaint on 15.09.2008 which came to be registered as P.C. No. 115/2008 and referred to the very same police for investigation of the same offences against the same Petitioner-accused and therefore, this act of the 2nd Respondent-complainant amounts to ''abuse of process of law'' and hence, all further proceedings in the said P.C. No. 115/2008 and Crime No. 98/2008 of the said P.S., registered on its basis, deserve to be quashed.
5. Per contra, Shri G.K. Hiregoudar, the learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent-complainant, relying on the two decisions of Hon''ble Supreme Court in (i) Jatinder Singh and Ors. v. Ranjit Kaur reported in AIR 2001 SCW 435 and (ii) Ranvir Singh v. State of Haryana and Anr. reported in AIR 2009 SCW 6169, strongly contends that since earlier complaint of this complainant was not dismissed on merits and as such, the Petitioner-accused was neither acquitted nor convicted nor was he discharged and therefore, the subsequent complaint filed by the complainant in P.C. No. 115/2008 is maintainable and hence, the present petition seeking quashing of the proceedings in the said case deserves to be rejected.
6. On careful reading of the above two decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, it could be seen that in 1st of them, i.e. in AIR 2001SCW 435 (Jatinder Singh''s case), the complaint that was filed by the complainant therein was dismissed for non-prosecution on the ground that despite sufficient opportunity the complainant remained absent from the Court without taking steps for issuing summons to the accused and hence, the second complaint was held maintainable. In second of the said decisions i.e., in AIR 2009 SCW 6169 (Ranvir Singh''s case), the complainant therein, despite availing sufficient opportunity, had failed to pay the process fees for effecting service on the accused therein and therefore, the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution and hence the subsequent complaint on the same set of facts and for the same offences against the same person was held maintainable.
7. The facts in the present case cannot be equated with the facts in both the above said cases inasmuch as, in the instant case, the complaint was referred to the police for investigation and the police, after completion of investigation, submitted ''B'' Summary Report and it was not opposed by the complainant by filing his objections to it despite availing sufficient opportunity and therefore the complaint came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Further, the 2nd complaint, which is filed on the same set of facts, for the same offences against this Petitioner-accused, as in the earlier complaint, has also been referred to the same police u/s 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure and this amounts to second investigation by the same police in respect of the same offences against the same accused which is not permissible under law. Therefore, I am of the opinion that both the said decisions of Hon''ble Supreme Court cannot be applied to the facts of the present case.
8. Earlier complaint was referred to the police and the police, after completing the investigation, submitted 8'' Summary Report and then, the complainant was given sufficient opportunity to oppose the said report, but he, instead of choosing to oppose the same, allowed his complaint to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Therefore, the remedy available to the complainant was to get his earlier complaint restored and then to proceed with it by opposing the ''B'' Report, instead of filing his 2nd complaint. When once a crime is investigated and the investigation results in the filing of final report, the same crime cannot be again ordered to be investigated. However, if the Court, before which such report is submitted, considers the said report and forms an opinion that further investigation is necessary, it may order further investigation in respect of the said crime and in such event there can be further investigation.
9. Therefore, under the above circumstances, which are peculiar to the instant case, the only remedy available to the complainant could be to get his first complaint restored to its original file and to proceed with it in accordance with law. If the complainant herein is allowed to proceed with his second complaint which has been referred by the learned Magistrate to the police for investigation and if the police again submit the same kind of report (''B'' report) and the complainant again does not choose to contest the same and allows this 2nd complaint also to be dismissed for non-prosecution, he may come up with his third complaint on the same cause of action. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that filing of the 2nd complaint by the complainant amounts to abuse of process of law. Hence, the present petition deserves to be allowed and the 2nd complaint and investigation thereon deserve to be quashed.
10. In view of my foregoing discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The present petition filed u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure is hereby allowed. The complaint in P.C. No. 115/2008 and the consequent Crime No. 98/2008 of Gandhi Jagar P.S., Bellary, registered on the said complaint pursuant to the order of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Bellary, passed u/s 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure in the said case are hereby quashed.
The complainant, who is Respondent No. 2 herein, shall have the liberty of getting his first complaint restored to its original file by approaching the proper forum subject to law of limitation.
No order as to costs.
